STATE OF PUNJABversusSAURABH BAKSHI

                         [2015] 3 S.C.R. 590


A                       STATE OF PUNJAB

                                  v.
                         SAURABH BAKSHI
B                (Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2015)

                          MARCH 30, 2015

          [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
c         Penal Code, 1860: s.304A - Rash and negligent
  driving - Imposition of sentence - Adequacy of quantum of
  sentence - Death of two due to rash and negligent driving- ·
  Tri.al court convicted respondent and sentenced him to
o undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment - High Court noted
  that LRs of the deceased were awarded compensation of
  Rs.7.30 lacs and Rs.12.07 lacs respectively and that
  respondent has undergone impnsonment of 24 days out of
  orle year and, therefore, while upholding conviction reduced
E the sentence to the period already undergone - Held: High
  Court was swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying
  the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for
  reduction of sentence to 24 days - It is ab!?olutely in th'e realm
  of misplaced sympathy and in a way mockery of justice -
F The sentence of 1 year as imposed by the courts .below is
  reduced to 6 months - Lawmakers to scrutinize, re-look and
  re-visit the sentencing policy in s. 304A - Sentence/
  Sentencing.

G          Allowing the appeal, tl:ie Court

          HELD: 1. In the instant case, the factum of rash
    and negligent driv1ing was established. This court has
    been constantly nc,ticing the increase in number of road
H
                                 590
      STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI                591


accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers A
have been totally rash and negligent. Neither the law nor
the court that implements the law should ever get
oblivious of the factthat in such accidents precious lives
are lost or the victims who survive are crippled for life
which, in a way, worse than death. Such developing of B
notions is a dangerous phenomenon in an orderly
society. The principle of sentencing recognizes the
corrective measures but there are occasions when the
deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon C
the facts of the case. The High Court was swayed away
by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that
payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of
sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of
misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. o
The sentence of one year as imposed by the trial
Magistrate which was affirmed by the appellate court is
reduced to six months. [Para 17] [610-A-B, C-D, F-H; 611-
A]
                                                        E
        2. India has a disreputable record of road
accidents. There is a non-challant attitude among the
drivers. They feel that they are the "Emperors of all they
survey". Drunkenness contributes to careless driving
where the other people become their prey. The poor feel F
that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of
uncertainty and the civilized persons drive in constant
fear but still apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude
of the people who project themselves as "larger than
life". In such obtaining circumstances, the lawmakers G
should scrutinize, re-look and re-visit the sentencing
policy in Section 304A, IPC. [Para 18] [611-8-D]

     Gopa/Singh v. StateofUttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC
                                                        H
592      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A       545; State of M.P. v. Mehtaab 2015 (2) SCALE
        386 - Distinguished.

        State of Punjab v. Ba/winder Singh and Ors. (2012)
        2 SCC 182: 2012 (1) SCR 45; Guru Basavaraj
B       Alias Benne Settappa v. State of Kamataka (2012)
        8 SCC 734: 2012 (8) SCR 189; Suresh v. State
        of Haryana Crl.Appeal No. 420 of 2012 decided
        on 28.11.2014; Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana
        (2000) 5 sec 82: 2000 (3) SCR1000; B.
c       Nagabhushanam v. State of Kamataka (2008) 5
        SCC 730: 2008 (8) SCR444; Ratan Singh v. State
        of Punjab (1979) 4 sec 719: 1980 (1) SCR846;
        State of Kamataka v. Krishna. (1987) 1 SCC
        538:1987 (1) SCR1103; Sevaka Perumal v. State
D
        of T.N. (1991) 3 sec 471: 1991 (2) SCR 111;
        Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat
        (1994) 4 SCC 353; State of Karnataka v.
        Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar (2002) 3
E       SCC 738: 2002 (2) SCR692; State of M.P. v.
        Saleem (2005) 5 SCC 554: 2005 (1) Suppl.
        SCR562; Siriya v. State of M.P. (2008) 8 SCC 72:
        2008 (8) SCR 422; AlisterAnthony Pareira Ii. State
        of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648: 2012 (1)
F       SCR145; Shailesh Jasvantbhaiv. State of Gujarat
        (2006) 2 sec 359: 2006 (1) SCR477; Shyam
        Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 77:
        2013 (8) SCR951 - referred to.

G                       Case Law Reference
      2012 (1) SCR 45            referred to       Para 6
      2012 (8) SCR 189           referred to       Para 6
      (2013) 1 sec 545           Distinguished Para 7
H
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI                        593



  2015 (2) SCALE 386           Distinguished Para 7              A
  2000 (3) SCR 1000            referred to       Para 10
  2008 (8) SCR 444             referred to       Para 11
  1980 (1) SCR 846             referred to       Para 11
                                                                 B
  1987 (1) SCR 1103            referred to       Para 12
  1991 (2) SCR 711             referred to       Para 12
  (1994) 4 sec 353             referred to       Para 12
  2002 (2) SCR 692             referred to       Para 12         c
  2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 562 referred to            Para 12
  2008 (8) SCR 422             referred to       Para 13
  2012 (1) SCR 145             referred to       Para 14
                                                                 D
   2006 (1) SCR 477            referred to       Para 15

  2013 (8) SCR 951             referred to       Para 16

      CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION': Criminal
                                                                 E
Appeal No. 520 of 2015

      From the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2013ofthe
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLR No.
2955 of2013
                                                                 F
       V. Madhukar, AAG, Anvita Cowshish, Moh it Nain, Kuldip
Singh for the Appellant.

      MeenakshiArora, Vandana Gogna, Mahima Sareen
and Vasav Ananthram, for the Respondents.                       G

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Long back, an eminent thinker
and author, Sophocles, had to say:
                                                                 H
594        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015] 3 S.C.R.



A            "Law can never be enforced unless fear
                        supports them."

        Though the aforesaid statement was made centuries back,
    it has its pertinence, in a way, with the enormous vigour, in
B   today's society. It is the duty of every right-thinking citizen to
    show veneration to law so that an orderly, civilized and
    peaceful society emerges. It has to be borne in mind that law
    is averse to any kind of chaos. It is totally intolerant of anarchy.
    If any one defies law, he has to face the wrath of law, depending
C   on the concept of proportionality that the law recognizes. It
    can never be forgotten that the purpose of criminal law
    legislated by the competent legislatures, subject to judicial
    scrutiny within constitutionally established parameters, is to
    protect the collective interest and save every individual that
0
    forms a constituent of the collective from unwarranted
    hazards. ~tis sometimes said in an egocentric and uncivilized
    manner that law cannot bind the individual actions which are
    perceived as flaws by the large body of people, but, the truth
E   is and has to be that when the law withstands the test of
    the constitutional scrutiny in a democracy, the individual
    notions are to be ignored. At times certain crimes assume
    more accent and gravity depending on the nature and impact
    of the crime on the society. No court should ignore the same
F   being swayed by passion of mercy. It is the obligation of the
    court to constantly remind itself that the right of the victim, and
    be it said, on certain occasions the person aggrieved as
    well as the society at large can be victims, never be
    marginalised. In this context one may recapitulate the
G   saying of Justice Benjamin N. Cardizo "Justice, though due to
    the accused, is due to the accuser too". And, therefore, the
    requisite norm has to be the established principles laid
    down in precedents. It is neither to be guided by a sense of
H   sentimentality nor to be governed by prejudices. We are
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI                        595
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

constrained to commence with this prologue because we are A
required to deal with the concept of adequacy of quantum of
sentence imposed by the High Court under Section 304A of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after maintaining the conviction
of the respondent of the said offence as the prosecution has
proven the charge that the respondent has caused death of B
two persons by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle.

        2. The facts which are necet ~itous to be stated are
that on 14.6.2007 Jagdish Ram and his nephew, Shavinder
Kumar @ Tinku, sister's son, had proceeded from Sangrur          C
to Patiala in their Maruti car bearing registration PB-11-M-
8050. The said vehicle was also followed by Ramesh
Chand in another Maruti car bearing registration no. PB-09-
C-6292. Be it noted that all of them had gone to house of one
Des Raj at Sangrur in connection with matrimonial alliance of    D
Shavinder Kumar alias Tinku. The vehicle that was driven by
Tinku was ahead of Ramesh's at a distance of 25/30 kadams.
After they reached some distance ahead of the bus stand
village Mehmadpur about 2.00 p.m. an lndica car bearing          E
 registration no. HR-02-6800 came from the opposite side at
a very high speed and the driver of the said car hit
straightaway the car of Jagdish and dragged it to a
considerable distance as a result of which it fell in the
ditches. Ramesh Chand, who was following in his car,             F
witnessed that his brother-in-law and nephew had sustained
number of injuries and their condition was critical. A police
ambulance came to the spot and the injured persons were
taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala where Jagdish and
Shavinder Kumar succumbed to injuries. In view of the said      G
incident as FIR was lodged by Ramesh Chand, brother-in-
law of Jagdish and accordingly a crime under Section
279/304A was registered against the respondent for rash
and negligent driving. The learned trial Magistrate, Patiala     H
596         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015] 3 S.C.R.


A framed charges for the offences punishable under Section
  279/304A IPC to which the respondent pleaded not guilty
  and claimed to be tried. Tlie prosecution' in order to prove
  its case examined six witnesses. The learned Addi. Chief
  Judicial Magistrate, Patiala vide judgment and order dated
B 23.4.2012 convicted the respondent for the offences
  punishable under Section 304A IPC and sentenced him to
  undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and
  pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with a default clause. On an appeal
C being preferred, the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Patiala
  dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated 6.9.2013.

              3. As the factual matrix would unveil the respondent
      being grieved by the aforesaid conviction and the sentence
      preferred Criminal Revision No. 2955 of 2013 and the High
0
      Court while disposing off the Criminal Revision addressed
      to the quantum of sentence and in that context observed that:-

           "... the legal heirs of Jagdish Ram have been
           awarded a sum of Rs.7,30,000/-as compensation
E          bythe MACT and Rs.12,07,206/- to the legal
           heirs of Swinder Kumar@Tinku by the MACT. The
           FAO Nos. 5329 and 5330 are pending in this Court.
           In compliance of order dated 19.9.2013, the
F          petitioner has deposited Rs.85,000/- before the
           trial court as compensation to be paid to the LRs
           of deceased Jagdish Ram and Swinder Kumar
           @ Tinku. The compensation shall be divided as
           Rs.50,000/- to the LRs of Swinder Kumar @ Tinku
G          and Rs.35,000/- to the LRs of Jagdish Ram. The
           receipt is taken on record. As per custody
           certificate petitioner Saurabh Bakshi has
           undergone 24 days as on 30.9.2013 out of one
           year."
H
        STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI                       597
                 [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

Being of this view the High Court uphE;lld the conviction and A
reduced the sentence, as has been stated before, to the
period already undergone. Hence, the State is in appeal.

       4. At this juncture, it is essential to state that the
respondent. who had initially wanted to argue the matter in-     B
person had agreed to be assisted by a counsel and
accordin.gly this court had appointed Ms. MeenakshiArora,
learned senior counsel to assist the court in the matter.

      5. We have heard Mr. V. Madhukar, learned Adpitional       c
Advocate General anq Ms. MeenakshiArora, learned senior
counsel for the respondent.

        6. It is submitted by Mr. Madhukar that when the
prosecution had been able to establish the charges leveled D
against the respondent and both the trial court and the
appellant court had maintained the sentence there was no
justification on the part of the High Court to reduce the
sentence. to the period already undergone solely on the basis
that the respondent had paid some compensation. It is his E
further submission that keeping in view the gravity of the
offence that two deaths had occurred the High Court should
have kept itself alive to the nature of the crime and should
 have been well advised not to interfere with the quantum of
sentence. He has commended us to the decisions in State F
of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh and Others 1 and Guru
Basavaraj Alias Benne Settappa v. State of Karnataka 2 .

       7. Ms. Meenakshi, learned senior counsel, per contra,
has contended that the respondent was quite young at the G
time the accident took place and it may be an act of
negligence, but the contributory facet by the Maruti car driver

1 (2012) 2 sec 1a2
2 (2012) a sec 734
                                                                H
598        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 3 S.C.R..


A  cannot be ruled out. That apart, there are mitigating
   circumstances for reduction of the sentence and in the
   obtaining factual matrix the High Court has appositely adopted
   corrective machinery which also reflects the concept of
   proportionality. The learned senior counsel would also submit
8 that when the High Court has exercised the discretion which
   is permissible under Section 304A this court should be slow
  to interfere. It is urged by her that when the compensation
  had been paid, the High Court has kept in view the aspect of
C rehabilitation of the victim and when that purpose have been
  sub-served the reduction of sentence should not be interfered
  with. The learned senior counsel has drawn inspiration from
  Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 3 and a recent
  judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2015 titled State of
D M.P. v. Mehtaab'.

         8. At the outset, it is essential to note that the
  respondent stood c:onvicted by the trial court as well by the
  appeHate court. The findings recorded by the said two courts
E are neither perverse nor did they call for interference in
  exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The High Court as we
  notice has been persuaded by the factum of payment of
  compensation by the respondent herein, amounting to
  Rs.85,000/- to the LRs of deceased Jagdish Ram and his
F nephew and the said compensation had been directed to be
  paid by virtue of the order dated 19.9.2013 passed by the
  High Court. It is submitted by Ms. Arora that apart from the
  young age of the respondent at the time of occurrence the
  aforesaid aspect would constitute the mitigating factor. In
G Mehtaab's case a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the
  case under Section 304A IPC wherein the respondent was
  convicted under Section 304A IPC and 337 IPC and sentenced

    3 (2013) 7 sec 545
H   4 2015 (2) SCALE 386
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI                            599
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

to undergo one year and three months rigorous                        A
imprisonment respectively. The High Court had reduced the
sentence to 10 days. It is apt to note here that in that case the
deceased had received injuries due to shock of electric
current. The court took note of the submission of the learned
counsel for the State and proceeded to opine as follows:-            B

      "7. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that
      the accused Respondent had installed a
      transformer in his field and left the electric wires
      naked which was a negligent act. The deceased                  c
      Sushila Bai died on account of the said naked
      wire which had high voltage and was not visible in
      the dark. The offence having been fully proved by
      the evidence on record, the High Court was not
                                                                     D
      justified in reducing the sentence to 10 days which
      was not just and fair. Even if liberal view on
      sentence of imprisonment was to be taken, the High
      Court ought to have enhanced the sentence of fine
      and awarded a reasonable compensation as a                     E
      condition for reduction of sentence.

      8. We find force in the submission. It is the duty of
      the Court to award just sentence to a convict
      against whom charge is proved. While every                     F
      mitigating or aggravating circumstance may be
      given due weight, mechanical reduction of
      sentence to the period already undergone cannot
      be appreciated. Sentence has to be fair not only to
      the accused but also to the victim and the society.            G
      It is also the duty of the court to duly consider the
      aspect of rehabilitating the victim. Unfortunately,
      these factors are missing in the impugned order.
      No cogent reason has been assigned for
                                                                     H
600        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A         imposing only 10 days sentence when an innocent
          life has been lost."

  After so stating the court referred to the decision in Suresh v.
  State of Haryana5 and enhanced the compensation taking
B note of the financial capacity of the accused respondent
  therein, and directed as follows:-

           "10. As already observed, the Respondent having
           been found guilty of causing death by his
c          negligence, the High Court was not justified in
           reducing the sentence of imprisonment to 10 days
           without awarding any compensation to the heirs
           of the deceased. We are of the view that in the
           facts and circumstances of the case, the order of
D         the High Court can be upheld only with the
           modification that the accused will pay
           compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the heirs of the
          deceased within six months. In default, he will
           undergo RI for six months. The compensation of
E          Rs. 2 lakhs is being fixed having regard to the
           limited financial resources of the accused but the
          said compensation may not be adequate for the
           heirs of the deceased. In such situation, in addition
F         to the compensation to be paid by the accused,
          the State can be required to pay compensation
          Under Section 357-A. As per judgment of this
          Court in Suresh (supra), the scheme adopted by
          the State of Kerala is applicab!e to all the States
G         and the said scheme provides for compensation
          upto Rs. 5 lakhs in the case of death. In the present
          case, it will be appropriate, in the interests of
          justice, to award interim compensation of Rs. 3

H   5 CrlAppeal No. 420 of 2012, decided on 28.11.2014
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI                     601
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

     lakhs Under Section 357-A payable out of the              A
     funds available/to be made available by the State
     of Madhya Pradesh with the District Legal
     Services, Authority, Guna. In case, the accused
     does not pay the compensation awarded as above,
     the State of Madhya Pradesh will pay the entire           B
     amount of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs within
     three months after expiry of the time granted to
     the accused."

       9. In our considered view the decision in the said C
case has to be confined to the facts of that case. It cannot be
said as a proposition of law that whenever an accused
offers acceptable compensation for rehabilitation of a victim,
regardless of the gravity of the crime under Section 304A,
                                                                0
there can be reduction of sentence.

        10. In this context, we may refer with profit to the
decision in Balwinder Singh (supra) wherein the High Court
had allowed the revision and reduced the quantum of sentence
awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the E
offences punishable under Section 304A, 337, 279 of IPC
by reducing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone
that is 15 days. The court referred to the decision in Dalbir
Singh v. State of Haryana6 and reproduced two F
paragraphs which we feel extremely necessary for
reproduction:-

      "1. When automobiles have become death traps any
      leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of
                                                               G
      rash driving would be at the risk of further
      escalation of road accidents. All those who are
      manning the steering of automobiles, particularly

a c20ooi 5 sec s2                                              H
602    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A     professional drivers, must be kept under constant
      reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and
      also of the consequences befalling them in cases
      of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of
      keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to
8     maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing
      sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere
      would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a
      frolic.
c                      * * * * *

       13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road
       accidents in India and the devastating
       consequences visiting the victims and their families,
D      criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence
       under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the
       benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the
      Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the
      quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence
E     of causing death by rash or negligent driving of
      automobiles, one of the prime considerations
      should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals
      the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout
      his working hours. He must constantly inform himself
F
      that he cannot afford to have a single moment of
      laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal
      of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should
      not take a chance thinking that a rash driving
G     need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if
      any accident occurs it need not necessarily result
      in the death of any human being; or even if such
      death ensues he might not be convicted of the
      offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he
H
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI                          603
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

     would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must           A
     always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he
     is convicted of the offence for [pic]causing death
     of a human being due to his callous driving of the
     vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence.
     This is the role which the courts can play, particularly      B
     at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate
     of motor accidents due to callous driving of
     automobiles."

       11. In B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka' C
the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment
for six months for the offences punishable under Section
304A IPC. The two-Judge Bench referred to Dalbir Singh
(supra) and declined to interfere with the quantum of sentence.
                                                                   0
Be it stated, in the said case a passage from Ratan Singh
v. State of Punjab8 was quoted:-

     "Nevertheless, sentencing must have a policy of
     correction. This driver, if he has to become a good
                                                                   E
     driver, must have a better training in traffic laws
     and moral responsibility, with special reference to
     the potential injury to human life and limb.
     Punishment in this area must, therefore, be
     accompanied by these components. Th~ State, we                F
     hope, will attach a course for better driving together
     with a livelier sense of responsibility, when the
     punishment is for driving offences. Maybe, the State
     may consider, in case of men with poor families, .
     occasional parole and reformatory courses on                 G
     appropriate application, withoutthe rigour of the old
     rules which are subject to Government discretion."


1 (2ooa) 5 sec 130
                                                                   H
8 (1979) 4 SCC719
604          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A·           12. In Guru Basavaraj (supra) the appellant was
     found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 337,
      338, 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced to suffer simple
     imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-
     and in default to suffer simple imprisonmerit of 45 days. The
B    two-Judge Bench after placing reliance on State of Karnataka
     v. Krishna 9, Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. 10, Jashubha
     Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat11 , State of Karnataka
     v. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar12 and State of
C    M.P. v. Saleem 13 opined that there is a constant concern of
     the court on imposition of adequate sentence in respect of
     commission of offences regard being had to the nature of the
     offence and demand of the conscience of the society. There
     has been emphasis on the concern tq impose adequate
o    sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC.
     The Court has observed that it is worthy to note that in
     certain circumstances, the mitigating factors have been taken
     into consideration but the said aspect is dependent on the
     facts of each case. As the trend of authorities would show,
E    the proficiency in professional driving is emphasised upon
     and deviation therefrom that results in rash and negligent
     driving and causes accident has been condemned. In a motor
     accident, when a number of people sustain injuries and a
     death occurs, it creates a stir in the society; sense of fear
F    prevails all around. The negligence of one shatters the
     tranquility of the collective. When such an accident occurs, it
     has the effect potentiality of making victims in many a layer
     and creating a concavity in the social fabric. The agony and
G    anguish of the affected persons, both direct and vicarious,
     can have nightmarish effect. It has its impact on the society

     19]   (1987) 1 sec 538
     [10] (1991) 3 sec 471
     [11] (19940 4 sec 353
H
     [12] (2002) 3 sec 738
     [13] (2005) 5 sec 554
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI                         605
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

and the impact is felt more when accidents take place quite A
often because of rash driving by drunken, negligent or, for
that matter, adventurous drivers who have, in a way, no
concern for others. Be it noted, grant of compensation under
the provisions of the MotorVehiclesAct, 1988 is in a different
sphere altogether. Grant of compensation under Section B
357(3) CrPC with a direction that the same should be paid
to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of
the act for which the accused has been sentenced has a
different contour and the same is not to be regarded as a C
substitute in all circumstances for adequate sentence.
Thereafter, the Court proceeded to observe:-
                                        i
   "32. We may note with profit t~at an appropriate
   punishment works as an eye-opener for the persons
                                                                  D
   who are not careful while driving vehicles on the road
   and exhibit a careless attitude possibly harbouring the
   notion that they would be shown indulgence or lives of
   others are like "flies to the wanton boys". They totally
   forgetthat the lives of many are in their hands, and           E
   the sublimity of safety of a human being is given an
   indecent burial by their rash and negligent act.

   33. There can hardly be any cavil that there has to be a
   proportion between the crime and the punishment. It is         F
   the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence
   is imposed regard being had to the commission of
   the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of
   the collective for justice which includes adequate
   punishment cannot be lightly ignored."                        G

Being of this view, the Court declined to interfere.

       13.   In Siriya v. State of M.P. 14 it has been held as
follows:-
                                                                  H
[141 (2oosi a sec 12
606        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A         "Protection of society and stamping out criminal
          proclivity must be theobjectoflawwhich must be
          achieved by imposing appropriate sentence.
          Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of
          "order" should meet the challenges confronting
B         the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing
          Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues
          to be-as it should be-a decisive reflection of
          social consciousness of society". Therefore, in
          operating the sentencing system, law should adopt
c
          the corrective machinery or deterrence based on
          factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing
          process be stern where it should be, and
          tempered with mercy where it warrants to be."
D
          14.      In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of
                  15
    Maharashtra while emphasizing on the inherent danger
    the Court observed thus:-

          "39. Like Section 304-A, Sections 279, 336, 337
E         and 338 IPC are attracted·for only the negligent
        · or rash act. The scheme of Sections 279, 304-A,
          336, 337 and 338 leaves no manner of doubt that
          these offences are punished because of the
F         inherent danger of the acts specified therein
          irrespective of knowledge or intention to produce
          the result and irrespective of the result. These
          sections make punishable the acts themselves
          which are likely to cause death or injury to human
G         life."

           15. While dealing with the policy of sentencing in
    Gopal Singh (supra) the two-Judge Bench quoted a
    paragraph from Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat16
H
    (151 (2012) 2 sec 648
    (161 (2006) 2 sec 359
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI                   607
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

which is as follows:-                                       A
     "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates
     conflicting claims and demands. Security of
     persons and property of the people is an essential
     function of the State. It could be achieved through    B
     instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there
     is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must
     find answer to the new challenges and the courts
     are required to mould the sentencing system to
     meet the challenges. The contagion of                  c
     lawlessness would undermine social order and lay
     it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out
     criminal proclivity must be the object of law
     which must be achieved by imposing appropriate
                                                            D
     sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the
     edifice of 'order' should meet the challenges
     confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in
     Changing Society stated that: 'State of criminal
     law continues to be-as it should be-a decisive         E
      reflection of social consciousness of society.'
     Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law
     should adopt the corrective machinery or
     deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft
      modulation, sentencing process be stern where         F
      it should be, and tempered with mercy where it
     warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances
     in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner ·
     in which it was planned and committed, the motive
     for commission of the crime, the conduct of the        G
     accused, the nature of weapons used and all other
     attending circumstances are relevant facts which
     would enter into the area of consideration."

In the said case it has been laid as follows:-              H
608    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 3 S.C.R.


A      "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the
       society. While the collective cry has to be kept
       uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the
       principle of proportionality between the crime and
       punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The
B      principle of just punishment is the bedrock of
       sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A
      punishment should not be disproportionately
      excessive. The concept of proportionality allows
       a significant discretion to the Judge but the same
c
      has to be guided by certain principles. In certain
      cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents
      of the [pic)accused, the factum of age, the
      potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in
D     future, capability of his reformation and to lead an
      acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect -
      propensity to become a social threat or nuisance,
      and sometimes lapse of time in the commission
      of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum
E     bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the
      relationship between the parties and attractability
      of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-
      based social mainstream may be the guiding
      factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain
F.    illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed
      manner. We may hasten to add that there can
      neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable
      theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be
      dependent on the facts of the case and
G
      rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the
      personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered
      moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions
      should be allowed to have any play. For every
H     offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of.
         STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI                      609
                  [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

      Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be              A
      treated with lenien.cy solely on the ground of
      discretion vested in a court. The real requisite
      is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime
      has been committed and other concomitant factors
      which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have          B
      been stated in a number of pronouncements by
      this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences
      are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in
      the realm of fancy. It should. be embedded in the
                                                                  c
      conceptual essence of just punishment."

         16. In Shyam Narain v. State (NCTofDelhi) 17 though
in a different context while dealing with the issue of sentencing
it has been stated that primarily it is to be borne in mind that
sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is to
                                                                   0
be imposed regard being had to the nature of the offence
and the manner in which the offence has been committed.
The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based
on the principle that the accused must realise thatthe crime E
committed by him has not only created a dent in his life but
also a concavity in the social fabric. The purpose of just
punishment is designed so that the individuals in the society
which ultimately constitute the collective do not suffer time
and again for such crimes. It serves as a deterrent. True it is, F
on certain occasions, opportunities may be granted to the
convict for reforming himself but it is equally true that [pic)the
principle of proportionality between an offence committed
and the penalty imposed are to be kept in view. While
carrying out this complex exercise, it is obligatory on the G
part of the court to see the impact of the offence on the society
as a whole and its ramifications on the immediate collective
as well as its repercussions on the victim.
1111 . (2013) 1 sec 11                                            H
~10        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2015] 3 S.C.R.



A              17. In the instant case the factum of rash and negligent
      driving has been established. This court has been constantly
       noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has
      also noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash
      and negligent. It seems to us driving in a drunken state, in
   B a rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful
      adventurous enthusiasm· as if there are no traffic rules or no
      discipline of law has come to the centre stage. The
      protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all respect for law. A
   C man with the means has, in possibility, graduated himself to
      harbour the idea that he can escape from the substantive
      sentence by payment of compensation. Neither the law nor
      the court that implements the law should ever get oblivious of
      the fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or the
   o victims who survive are crippled for life which, in a way,
      worse then death. Such developing of notions is a dangerous
      phenomenon in an orderly society. Young age cannot be a
      plea to be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the poor or
      the impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich and
.. E the luxuriously temperamental. Needless to say, the principle
      of sentencing recognizes the corrective measures but there
      are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity
      depending upon the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a
      fit case. where we are constrained to say that the High Court
   F has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying
      the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for
      reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm
      of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice.
  G Because justice is "the crowning glory", "the sovereign
      mistress" and "queen of virtue" as Cicero had said. Such a
      crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many
      others around them. It ultimately shatters the faith of the
      public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one
  H · year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been
         STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAURABH BAKSHI                         611
                  [DIPAK MISRA, J.)

affirmed by the appellate court should be reduced to six A
months.

        18. Before parting with the case we are compelled to
observe that India has a disreputable record of road
accidents. There is a non-challant attitude among the drivers. B
They feel that they are the "Emperors of all they survey".
Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where the other
people become their prey. The poor feel that their lives are
not safe, the pedestrians think. of uncertainty and the civilized
persons drive in constant fear but still apprehensive about C
the obnoxious attitude of the people who project themselves
as "larger than life". In such obtaining circumstances, we
are bound to observe that the lawmakers should scrutinize,
re-look and re-visit the sentencing policy in Section 304A,
IPC. We say so with immense anguish.
                                                                  0

        19. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed to the extent
indicated above and the respondent be taken into custody
forthwith to suffer the remaining period of sentence.
                                                                    E
Devika Gujral                                    Appeal allowed.




                                                                    F




                                                                    G




                                                                    H